Civility Lite: Civil — Yet Robust — Discourse

In his Tucson speech at the memorial service for the victims of the horrific shooting attack by a mentally deranged man, President Obama stated that while lack of civility in America’s political discourse did not motivate the shooter, public discourse would be improved were more civility shown by participants in the debate. Liberals instantly blamed the right’s “incivility” for the horror in Tucson.

It is hard to quarrel with a call for civility. And surely some especially extreme formulations are out of bounds. In 2005, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said of treatment of detainees at Guantanamo meted out by American personnel:

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.

Durbin was pressured to apologize for likening Guantanamo jailers to genocidal regimes, and did so. This episode did not prevent Durbin from being one of the few high-ranking politicians to blame the shootings on inflammatory rhetoric by prominent conservatives. High-powered liberal pundits were the prime culprits.

Target Number One was Sarah Palin, who was blamed by prominent leftists for the incident even before the name of the shooter was known, let alone his motives. It turned out that the shooter was a paranoid schizophrenic who was entirely apolitical. He had been stalking Rep. Gabrielle Giffords since a 2007 encounter, and according to friends paid no attention whatsoever to cable TV or talk radio. His world was, in effect, his own deranged mind.

Yet Palin was even blamed for her own response to a fusillade of attacks on her, especially for using the term “blood libel.” That term has a specific meaning in Jewish history — false accusations that Jews drink the blood of non-Jewish children on Passover — but has acquired a broader secondary meaning in domestic political discourse. It denotes accusations that are maliciously, outrageously false. The charges against Palin fit the bill perfectly.

Palin made an important historical point: From the earliest days of the American republic debate has frequently been nasty, including duels. Andrew Jackson killed several people in duels defending the honor of his wife, Rachel, before he became president. Indeed, the debates around the time of the founding were often conducted under pseudonyms. The Federalist Papers, in which James Madison, Alexander Hamilton — killed by Aaron Burr in a duel — and John Jay made the public case for ratifying the Constitution, were all published under the pen name Publius. Today’s 24/7 Internet world with millions of blogs has given us at worst to-date hacking into online accounts, including Palin’s.

Use of martial metaphors has long been common in political campaigns. Liberals cite Sarah Palin’s cross-hairs ad targeting Democratic candidates. They ignore the Democratic National Committee’s own bulls-eye ads during President Bush’s re-election campaign. There is zero evidence that such terms prompted any of the violence against political figures in recent decades. JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was a deranged Marxist; RFK assassin Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian militant angry at RFK’s support for Israel; Martin Luther King assassin James Earl Ray was a white racist; would-be assassins of Gerald Ford were an ex-Manson-gang female member (Lynnette “Squeaky” Fromme) and a deranged woman (Sara Jane Moore). Would-be Reagan assassin John Hinckley wanted to impress actress Jodie Foster. The last member of Congress assassinated, California Rep. Leo Ryan, was killed in Guyana in 1978 by followers of cultist Jim Jones, whose acolytes then committed mass suicide.

In the landmark 1964 libel case New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court erected a high legal wall to libel suits brought against the press by plaintiffs deemed public figures, justifying their ruling by stating that in a free society debate must be “uninhibited, robust and wide open.” A debate which caters to every sensitivity by eliminating even use of images like the “bulls-eye” would be a sleep-inducing affair limited to goody two-shoes exchanges. Even the term “campaign” is itself a martial metaphor. Do we want this?

Yes, some formulations are rightly shunned — racial epithets, profanity, Nazi (“Bush-Hitler”), Communist. Such outbursts add nothing useful to debate. In January 2005 Howard Dean said: “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for!” In February 2005 — the very month that the former Vermont governor was elected chairman of the Democratic Party — Dean said: ”This is a struggle between good and evil and we’re the good.” Liberals in the main agree.

Yes, I have focused on the left’s abuse; there is abuse from the right as well. But because liberal pundits and bloggers went ballistic in the immediate aftermath of the shootings, such examples serve as a corrective. Invective is everywhere and always has been. When someone goes way over the line, reaction will force retraction. But most of the time debate should be as ever “uninhibited, robust and wide open,” with lots of sharp witticisms, acid analogies, and the like. Even Calvin Coolidge fans should chuckle at what humorist Dorothy Parker said, when told of famously taciturn Silent Cal’s passing: “How can they tell?” And yes, Sarah Palin can channel Tina Fey’s perfect Sarah twin — and did so, when they met on SNL.

20 Comments, 16 Threads

1.
Charm

Incivility is the left’s favorite tactic for, dare I say, political war. If lefties truly wanted to reduce incivility they would heal themselves first. I wish conservatives would stop responding to the left’s premise that conservatives are uncivil as though the left is making a sincere point. Sincerity is not what leftists are about when they engage politically. They are being tactical. Conservatives should reject their accusations when false which is 99.9% of the time, point out their use of this tactic and admonish them for repeatedly accusing others of what they do without first apologizing for all their incivility. I’m tired of listening to conservatives say, “Yes conservatives should be more careful about what they say”. Wake up and stuff the left’s tactics back in their mouth, metaphorically, of course.

I am more than happy to be completely uncivil to them, by their lights. I don’t care even a tiny bit what they think of me; I’ll call them out every time, and I’ll be intentionally scornful of their inane ranting. Sorry, but patting a rabid rat on the head and saying, “nice doggy” isn’t a demonstration of your kindheartedness–it’s a demonstration of your idiocy.

The Left always accuses the right of what they are guilty of. then they try to shout them down.

the Progressive-dada (their true name) politic began nearly 100 years ago. They are largely responsible for the demoralization and decay of society and its institutions. This four part web movie explains (watch part 2 first)

The civility card is just a trap, a means of framing the debate. Like phrases such as “diversity” and “social justice” the word will rapidly morph into a concept that will bear no resemblance to the original meaning of the word. That is, if we let it.

Sometimes labels fit even when they have connotations that might hurt the feelings and self esteem of the people who are branded with them. That’s just too bad. Sometimes they deserve them, and their little feelings be damned.

I’m 100% with Charm’s opinion. Trying to be reasonable is a losing tactic in debate with a left wing Fantasist. Although I must say, I don’t think a majority of the public buys the Left’s insincerty and outright dishonesty and misrepresentation. They simply aren’t that stupid. It’s a 1970s ‘limited media outlet’ strategy.
But there is that percentage that does buy it, and that’s one of the reasons they keep doing it. Helps keep the true believers in line. They work hard for their market share.
The Fantasists of the Left (that’s Fantasists, not Fascists) accused Sarah Palin of responsibility for the action of a crazed assassin. When she responded, they claimed she’s making it “all about her.”
Hard to have a reasonable discussion with people who are unconcerned and unconnected with the truth. No point making concessions or projecting weakness.
In rhetoric, the best defense is a good offense. I once got some great advice from a cop: Get your side of the story in first.

The liberal Left thinks Palin is wrong about anything she says no matter how innocent 100% of the time. Why they demonize this woman and do a Ronald Reagan on her is beyond me. It’s “Bedtime For Bonzo” all over again and with unforseen results.

If Palin is so wrong why not debate her policies or point of view on a political level instead of putting the ol’ Hitler mustache on her? Since the Left chooses not to do so and instead chooses personal insults they are guilty of the very thing they accuse the Right of to no one’s surprise. Ironically, those on the Right in the media the Left targets, though certainly one-sided such as Beck or Hannity, also do excellent research which is no where to be found on the Left. Instead what you have is a presumption of moral superiority which trumps mere competence.

The Left is only being caught with its pants down on this one and is probably generating more sympathy and attention for Palin than is really wise given the Left’s hatred of Palin.

Although unlikely, should Palin ever become President the first people she should thank are her worst detractors.

Nobody is calling for a lack of agressive debate. What we on the civil left (and we have some loonies too, no doubt about it) are worried and disgusted by is the imagery fronted by Glenn Beck and Fox News, that we are traitors, nazis, enemies of the US, socalists and so on. Its true that Sarah Palin herself doesnt indulge in these most extreme views, but she is a part of the Fox network and so responsible for its policies. I would dearly love to see Palin say something like “No, the president is not a nazi, not a communist and not insane or evil. We disagree politically on every level, but I distance myself fully from the charges made by my colleague Beck.”.

That would be the speech of a responsible politician. Instead we have an emerging cultleader who in her response to the shootings did not even pay tribute to the victims either by name or by specific mention. This is not just about Palin, but its about an ugly line of rhetoric wich has emerged since day1. of Obamas election. Y`all can scream and holler, but the average american sees through you. America is in deep trouble, what the people need is solution oriented politics, not cultural warfare.

“…are worried and disgusted by is the imagery fronted by Glenn Beck and Fox News, that we are traitors, nazis, enemies of the US, socalists and so on.”

Well you are. Prove that you are not. Prove that you and the left do not share marxist ideology. Prove that you are not enemies of the US by showing us that you treat the Constitution with respect (I expect quotes here); prove that what you, the left and Odummer have done for the past two years actively and past 50 years passively and actively is not based on socialism.

“…are worried and disgusted by is the imagery fronted by Glenn Beck and Fox News, that we are traitors, nazis, enemies of the US, socalists and so on.”

Well you are! Prove that you are not. Prove that you and the left do not share a marxist ideology. Prove that you are not enemies of the US by showing us that you treat the Constitution with respect (I expect quotes here); prove that what you, the left and Odummer have done for the past two years actively and past 50 years passively and actively is not based on socialism.

“Instead we have an emerging cultleader who in her response to the shootings did not even pay tribute to the victims either by name or by specific mention.”

Nice try tumbleweed. But Gov. Palin did address the tragedy. So you see you cannot even be honest here. Why should we let you frame the debate and direct the culture. You have made a mess of the US to the point that we-Ameicans and the left cannot co-exist any longer.

Well, I don’t believe the discourse on the shooting should be about who got how radical in their unfriendly political talking head wars… nor should it be about how deranged and non-political the shooter was – obviously completely incorrect anyway.
The TRUTH that no one wants to face is ” it was bound to happen “.
It happened, where it happened, in that state, because it’s the center of political controversy in the USA, and something “had to give”, or perhaps more correctly, “was bound to happen”.
I’m talking about the convergence of the illegal immigration, homeland security, post 911, jobless America, guard the borders, dumping economy, left vs right immigration nation fight – you name it, it is CENTERED in the great state of Arizona…
And… that’s where the “proletariat” statement took place.
It was bound to happen.
It is similar in nature to the taxed and taxed again suicide IRS building plane incident recently in Austin, Texas.
It is a “wake up call” to all the politicans, as indeed Obama and the state were immedaitely activated into full blown cover the backside, talk to the governed, spin and win sin coverage – and the entire nation pretty much complied and declared themselves absolutely divorced from the gunning nutbagger….

The biggest truth though is, the incident shows exactly where the USA, the nation is – and something had to give, and it did.
Not a pretty sign, not a good sign, not comforting – but one that got noticed – and of course, was then said to be pretty much “nothing”.
No indeed, the “nutbag” was speaking for and to the entire nation, and that’s why the POTUS had to come out a clamoring for some competence and calm…

It’s rather sad how the talk is about how bad the talk is, instead of how bad the whole nation is, and as it gets worse and worse, stuff like this incident will without any doubt happen more and more and more.
That’s the big secret no one wants to talk about in this case – since of course, “it took a nutter” to make the statement.

“Durbin was pressured to apologize for likening Guantanamo jailers to genocidal regimes, and did so.”

Sure, he had to be literally dragged kicking and screaming to apologize. But liberals today, especially in Congress, are using an old lawyer’s trick to get their miserable points across. Sometimes during a trial, a lawyer will say something very biased against his or her opposition. The other lawyer makes an objection, and the judge says, “Sustained, and the jury is directed to disregard the statement.” Swell, the jury is supposed to “disregard” the statement, even though they still HEARD it, thereby influencing their ultimate decision. So an apology from either a politician or the main stream media today means very little. They still made the accusation and it still hangs out there and they are still hoping that the public in general will remember the accusation and NOT the forced apology.

Pretty scummy, right? But that’s what they do. Smear your enemies because they know you can’t sue them if you’re a public figure, and then issue a forced apology that nobody will listen to after the charges have been made. You’re going to hear a lot of this in the coming 2012 election, so be prepared. The funny thing is, though, we know this now and can’t be fooled by it and we will certainly call them on it. Stinks to be a liberal these days when you know how they operate.

I blame the wholesale distribution of thesauruses along with word processing programmes for this nonsense! Having access to the rich tapestry of the whole English language rather than their own limited personal lexicons has enabled more people to spew more eloquent hatred in more places than has ever before been possible.

Relax – I’m just joking. Sort of.

But, there’s a serious element behind my jest. If any of you are as interested in words as I am – where they came from, how they evolved to their current usages, how they drop from the common lexicon, etc. – you’ll have no doubt observed the same slow steady march toward more exaggerated expression as have I. Forty years ago, things were “cool”; before that they were “swell” or “neat”. Now, they’re “awesome”, “fantastic”, or even “brilliant”. Whereas someone in 1950 might have said “I really don’t like _____”, what you’ll hear today is more likely to be “I hate _____”.

We’ve seen a general escalation in the tone of the language we use day in and day out. Like so many aspects of our lives, the meanings of language are being super-sized. [ProTip: the fact that we even have a word "super-sized" is a perfect example of the process of which I speak.]

I’d warrant there are many socio-cultural reasons why this has happened, and would further bet that one could develop a very nice doctoral thesis on the topic – the popular media and internet are rife with examples to cite, eh? I think we all understand that language, especially the English language, is a flexible and dynamic tool and that it changes over time as need and fashion dictate. But, as has been pointed out, language can also be used malevolently to manipulate and control. “Crosshairs” may eventually fade from use over time – it happens. But I’ll be damned if I’ll let it be because some intellectual despot on the teevee tells me to stop using it.

What we learned from the left is that when they lose the intellectual argument, when they lose on the merit of the facts, when they have no reasonable response to logic, then the conversation has become course and uncivil.
The problem is not the conversation rather it is the progressive movement’s faltering against the will of the people and the Constitution.

Next time a democrat says he wants the parties together or someone starts talking “no labels” or “third way” let’s remember when there was a tragic shooting in Arizona where our country should have come together, the democrats and the left came out against the 1st and 2nd amendment and came in with a pre planned and coordinated attack blaming the right, Tea Parties, and specifically naming names of talk show hosts and of course Sarah Palin.
The left don’t view the Arizona shooting as a tragedy, but rather as an opportunity. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) is after our gun rights with a bill she has ready to reduce clip size and et al for the standard anti-gun bromides. Senator Dick Durbin, who once compared our soldiers to Pol Pot and Nazis, is trying to take away our freedom of speech by talking about poison political discourse on the right. NYT Paul Krugman drops a hit piece column based on nothing. Rep Clyburn (D-SC) and Al Sharpton (who once used his freedom of speech to incite riots) are calling for a return of the “Fairness Doctrine”, and Rev Al specifically wants Rush Limbaugh thrown off the airwaves.
Now Barak Obama takes the Air Force One down to Tuscan and rises above partisanship to a cheering crowd… Doesn’t that just put the cherry on it? Now he wants civility! The leader of the left is now condescendingly lecturing us like we’ve all done something wrong.
Actions speak louder than words. The press is now blaming Sarah Palin for “injecting herself into the story” and the Congressional dems are throwing around Nazi terms to describe the repeal of health care. Robert Gibbs describes the repeal of health care as “not serious”, meaning rather than discuss the oppositions points, he doesn’t give it standing. This civility?
The price of democracy is constant vigilance. Give these liberals an inch they will take a mile. They will take away every right and dollar of ours if allowed. Right now they want your health care and you dollars to pay for and the freedom of speech. What will it be tomorrow?

“To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member.”

“Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man…. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted.”

Breast cancer is not really a mysterious disease that suddenly attacks you out of an blue, something that you can’t do anything about. It has definite causes you can correct if your triactol scam has enough time, and in case you take action to change the internal environment to one that creates health, not cancer. Breast Cancer usually doesn’t always cause early symptoms. However this is why regular breast exams are important. Simply because the cancer grows, symptoms may include a breast triactol or triactol in the armpit and that is hard, has uneven edges, and usually cannot hurt. A change inside the feel on the breast or pus-like fluid coming using the nipple is often the early signs of impending breast cancer.http://www.swb.com.au/members/asingh/profile/